Why not just conduct a randomized controlled trial to test whether masks work against COVID-19? Why assume such a draconian and dehumanizing mandate works as if it's an article of faith and create such division when we can discover which side is correct? That's what a group of Danish researchers felt, which is why, over the spring, they conducted such a study. So why have the results not been published, three months later? According to one Danish newspaper, the study has been rejected by three medical journals because the results are too controversial.
Berlingske, Denmark's oldest operating daily newspaper, published an article on Thursday titled, "Professor: Large Danish mask study rejected by three top journals" (translation from Google translate), which finally reveals the mystery of the disappearing Danish mask study.
According to the Danish newspaper @berlingske tre scientific journals have refused to publish the results of the fi… https://t.co/DmJkxBi1vZ— Lars Christensen (@Lars Christensen)1603309790.0
"The researchers behind a large and unique Danish study on the effect of wearing a mask even have great difficulty in getting their research results published," wrote the Berlingske in the subtitle. "One of the participating professors in the study admits that the still secret research result can be perceived as 'controversial'."
The article reveals that, thus far, the study has been rejected by the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the American Medical Association's journal JAMA, three of the publications that have been posting much of the research on coronavirus.
The CDC, prior to changing its position on universal mask-wearing, had previously cited 10 randomized controlled trials that showed "no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks." Now, the CDC and other elite institutions would have us believe that coronavirus is somehow different. The Danes were the first to actually study the effect of large-scale universal mask-wearing specifically against the spread of COVID-19.
The rest of the article is behind a paywall, but Dr. Andrew Bostom of Brown University posted a translation of the text he obtained. The professor who spoke to the newspaper did not reveal why the publications felt the study was "controversial," but did defend the study as an "outstanding sample."
3/ “Outstanding study”... “study & its size are unique in the world, & purpose was once & for all to try to clarif… https://t.co/VOGC6mcLe4— Andrew Bostom (@Andrew Bostom)1603364928.0
The researcher involved told the Berlingske, "The study and its size are unique in the world, and the purpose was once and for all to try to clarify the extent to which the use of masks in public space provides protection against corona infection."
While the professor did not divulge the results of the survey, he did reveal that it included 6,000 participants, with half of them wearing masks and half functioning as the control group. The study began in late April and was originally slated for publication in August.
The Berlingske article, authored by Lars Henrik Aagaard, also mentions the email correspondence between another of the researchers involved, Thomas Lars Benfield, and former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson. Earlier this week, Berenson posted a copy of the email from Benfield replying to Berenson's inquiry about the date of publication.
"As soon as a journal is brave enough to accept the paper," replied Benfield.
Reporter Aagaard writes that he reached out to Benfield, who confirmed the email exchange with Berenson but asserted that the quote was taken "a bit out of context" and that the study, after being rejected by others, is currently being reviewed "by a respected journal." However, he didn't elaborate on why he felt it was out of context and just confirmed that researchers have no plans to leak any of the data to the public until it is published.
On the other hand, Aagaard interviewed Benfield's co-author, Christian Torp-Pederson, who intimated that the reason behind the rejection is likely what we are all thinking.
4/ Likely Null? “Can one interpret a controversial research result in the sense that no significant effect of mask… https://t.co/YReofnyuue— Andrew Bostom (@Andrew Bostom)1603364980.0
After reading this, if you were a betting man, do you think this study shows any degree of effectiveness in mask-wearing against the spread of COVID-19? Remember, this is the only study of its kind. If it truly showed what the media-political-scientific complex wants it to show, why would it not be published expeditiously? This is the most vexing question of our time. Yet nobody seems interested in having a debate or finding out the truth.
The phobia among the political elites against subjecting mask-wearing mandates to the scientific method is not surprising. In July, Dr. Fauci told a group of Georgetown University students that he has no intention of conducting a controlled study in the U.S.
Well, if I were a betting man, I'd say the realm of possibilities likely range from no effect at all to … making the spread worse! Time will tell, but this ordeal raises a larger question: How many other scientific and academic studies covering an array of very consequential policy questions rooted in scientific debate are being censored because they don't fit the narrative of the political elites? What's next? Will they ban maps showing the world is not flat?